Public Submission

CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 1 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

Please use this form to send your comments relating to matters, or other Council and Committee matters, to the City Clerk’s Office. In accordance with sections 43 through 45 of Procedure Bylaw 35M2017, as amended. The information provided may be included in written record for Council and Council Committee meetings which are publicly available through www.calgary.ca/ph. Comments that are disrespectful or do not contain required information may not be included.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Personal information provided in submissions relating to Matters before Council or Council Committees is col- lected under the authority of Bylaw 35M2017 and Section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act of Alberta, and/or the Municipal Government Act (MGA) Section 636, for the purpose of receiving public participation in municipal decision-making. Your name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda. If you have questions regarding the collection and use of your personal information, please contact City Clerk’s Legislative Coor- dinator at 403-268-5861, or City Clerk’s Office, 700 Macleod Trail S.E., P.O Box 2100, Postal Station ‘M’ 8007, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2M5.

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Annie

* Last name Appleyard

Email [email protected]

Phone 4032796762

* Subject development permit - DP2020-3072

Land Use Bylaw Amendment -LOC2020-0013, Project Address 7401-23 St SE. I would like to address the project that intends to marry the Ogden United Church with the Mustard Seed. The way I found out about this undertaking felt like it was already a done deal. I still have this sinking feeling! As far as I can tell there was little to no communication with the community as a whole. I have spoken to many other members of our community and no one seems to know even how this scheme was thought of never mind the actual details of this amalgamation. * Comments - please refrain from I have seen the proposed design of this building and I must say It will be a thorn in the providing personal information in community. The size, both height and width and proposed occupancy, does not fit in this field (maximum 2500 the middle of a family unit. Our community is made up of mostly single family dwell- characters) ings. Besides the building, with all it's fancy bells and whistles, that corner cannot handle the added parking nor the heavy number of people.involved. The added traffic for this block will be very troublesome for the neighbors who bought on that block because of the quiet and lack of traffic. The commercial use of this building will not fit on the corner of this proposed block not the community. Thank you Annie Appleyard (403)279-6762 [email protected]

ISC: 1/1

Unrestricted Sep 6, 2020

12:24:14 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

6901 20A Street SE Calgary, Alberta T2C 0R5 l 403-279-3973 l

September 6, 2020

City Council (via the City Clerk) The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100 Station M Calgary, AB. T2P 2M5

Re: Ogden United Church/Mustard Seed Street Ministry Development at 7401 – 23 Street SE, Calgary Land Use Bylaw Amendment - LOC2020-0013 Development Permit - DP2020-3072

This letter is to consolidate context relative to the application for a Land Use Bylaw Amendment, and Area Revitalization Plan Amendment currently before the council and further to provide context, information and community sentiment with regards to the Corresponding Development Permit which has been approved pending the outcome of the subject public hearing.

The Community Association, reflecting the values and concerns of the community at large and specifically in the immediate vicinity to the Ogden United Church, wishes to take the opportunity to make comment and provide context to the above-mentioned applications. It is important to note that the Association forms no opinion of its own; rather it collates the sentiment of the community at large as representatives of our constituents. That is to say, the Community is generally not opposed to the type of development described, rather we are opposed to the scale of the development in context with the surrounding community and suggest other suitable sites in which the Ogden United Church and the Mustard Seed Street Ministry could attempt to secure.

General Background and Demographics

The Community of what is now Millican-Ogden was created in 1912 and named after I.G. Ogden, then vice president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and combined with the lands William Millican, who had sub-divided a quarter section into lots which sold for $325-$500 at the time1. The Community itself has a long and storied history of working class Calgarians and is currently composed of many new families and many multi-generational families. As of 2019, Ogden has a population of 8,576 in 3,875 residential dwellings2. We understand and can advise that Millican-Ogden has had a population peak on just over 11,000 residents, and as a result of land contamination of the Imperial Oil Refinery site lost approx. 6% of our housing representing approximately 25% of our population. As of 2015 (the most recent survey undertaken by the City of Calgary (the “City”), Millican-Ogden has between 201-600 Affordable housing suites3 representing 6%-20% of the available housing.4 The national average for affordable housing is 6%. It should be noted from the report that one half of all Calgary Communities have little to no affordable housing at all.5

1 Ogden Area History Committee, Ogden Whistle: A History of Millican, Ogden Flats, Maryland, Valleyfield, Bonnybrook, South Hill, Cepeear, Lynwood, Lynnwood Ridge, River Glen, Crestwood, C.P.R. Ogden Shops. (Calgary) 1975. 2 City of Calgary, 2019 Civic Census Results, 2019 (Calgary, City of Calgary) at page 57. 3 City of Calgary, Housing in Calgary: an Inventory of Housing Supply, 2015/2016 (Calgary, City of Calgary) at page 30. 4 Supra at note 2, at page 32. 5 Supra at note 3. 6901-20 A Street SE Calgary, Alberta T2C OR5 Phone: 403-279-3973 Fax: 403-279-5755 Email: [email protected] Admin office hours: 1-4 PM (Mon-Fri) Website: www.millicanogdencommunity.com CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

It is the position of the community that while affordable housing is necessary in our society, and in fact, in our community, and that growth is inevitable, that the requirement for further non-market housing is not so great that it requires an increase of 24 residential units out of context with the surrounding low-density residential community.

General Planning Principles

The City must be reminded that pursuant to Provincial Legislation and Common-Law decisions, that its deliberations are limited to approved planning documents. Throughout this planning and consultation period, both the City Administration and the Developer have made reference to the Guidebook for Great Communities, and the Draft Millican-Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan. Neither of which are approved planning documents. The City must be reminded that the only approved planning documents are the following: a. Municipal Government Act RSA 2000 c. M-26; b. Calgary Municipal Development Plan, inclusive of the Developed Areas Guidebook as amended by bylaw 82P2018 December 10. 2018; c. The Millican-Ogden Area Revitalization Plan as amended January 2020; d. Bylaw 1P2007, the “Land Use Bylaw” as amended from time to time;6 and e. Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations, CRC., c.77

The MGA provides at section 617, that:

“The purpose of this Part and the regulations and bylaws under this Part is to provide means whereby plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted … without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that it is necessary for the overall greater public interest. [emphasis added]7

With the above in mind we remind council that not all great developments are in support of the overall greater good, or at least with such sufficiency to infringe on the rights of individuals of peaceful enjoyment of their own properties, whether those be owned or rented.

The area in which the Development is planned is currently exhaustively zoned, R-C2, Municipal Parks or School and Parks Reserve8 (within 336m), including the lot in which the Church is currently located. It must be stressed that the current Church was there long before the current designation, or in fact long before development planning existed within Alberta, and in its current form would not likely have been approved within the current zoning.

The Proposed Designation is DC based on an M-X2 construct with relaxations, both to building height and parking requirements which will be discussed in greater detail below. The Development seeks to expand the Permitted uses in M-X2, to some discretionary uses within the district and some not within that district. It is submitted that the overall massing of the structure itself has not been evaluated with a view to the infringement of the neighboring properties to their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their properties including concerns of privacy within their yards and in some cases within their homes. The angles of site from the residential portions of the property tend to indicate that those on the third floor and above will have an unrestricted view, in many cases, into the yards and homes of their neighbors thereby unnecessarily infringing on the rights of those neighboring rate payers.

The Land Use

6 These statutory documents are referenced throughout and form the book of authorities following this letter. 7 Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c . M-26 8 City of Calgary, Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 Land Use District Maps, Section 25S (Calgary, City of Calgary) January 13, 2020

2 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

The Property has been used since at least 1916, and probably as early as 1914, as a church, although it should be noted that the Happy Days Pre-School has been in operation within the Church’s walls for at least 40 years and has seen as many as three generations of local families pass through its doors. Nothing in this submission should be seen to advocate to limit the use of the property for this purpose.

We can agree that while a Church is permitted in an R-C2 Land Use Designation, commercial childcare services are not. In order to determine conditions for relaxation we must, in fact, we are required to determine the context of the surrounding community.9 With the foregoing in mind, we must then turn to what an acceptable designation might be for a Church, with two (2) commercial childcare facilities, with an appropriate number of supportive housing units with “wrap-around” supports.

The partnership between the Mustard Seed Street Ministry and the Ogden United Church resulting in the Development has been described as similar (if not exactly) to the Marlborough Park Neighbor Centre and as such one of the arguments in its favour is that it has been done before. It must be noted, however, that the Marlborough Park Neighbor Centre is located at 6060 Memorial Drive NE, in what is commercially known as Madgen Centre, a commercial endeavor best described as a “strip mall”, as such it is designed in a manner consistent with commercial property development and contextually based within the confines of what was pre-existing in the community. Further it is offered that this is a first of its kind development in Calgary and there can be no direct comparisons made in that regard.

Development Control (or Direct Control)

Prior to evaluating or comparing zoning and development control on a particular parcel it is helpful to understand the history of Development Control and its purpose in Alberta throughout history. In his paper, Alberta’s Direct Control District, Douglas MacDonald compares zoning and development control as follows: “At the theoretical level, obvious differences exist between zoning and development control. These differences result directly from the rigid or flexible regulatory approach to each concept. Firstly, zoning predetermines the final land use pattern of the community, whereby any subsequent development must them conform to that pattern. Thus, zoning provides certainty and protection for the landowner in the use of property, [emphasis added] but is unresponsive to changing conditions or variations from the end-state it strives to achieve. Alternatively, development control, through a discretionary review process, grants development permission based on merit, as opposed to pre-regulation. Therefore, development control is flexible and responsive to change and can adjust to unforeseen situation, but provides less assurance to the landowner in the use of property and can lead to “ad hoc” or arbitrary decision-making.10 [Emphasis added]

Calgary has increasingly courted and perhaps even married ourselves to Direct Control as our sole method of planning with a side of traditional zoning, so much so that what we now have is nothing but ad hoc zoning with no clear development vision for the city of Calgary.

In the five (5) year period 2015-2019 the city of Calgary has approved an average of 293.8 direct control districts per year, a stark increase over any other 5-year period, the highest of which being 2000-2004 with a previous all-time high of 120.2.11 With the foregoing in mind it is clear that this has become a case of none of the rules let me do what I want to so we must remake the rules. It simply runs counter to good planning principles, and we would suggest that while we are in the middle of conducting an ARP review now is not the time to be conducting “Ad Hoc” planning within Millican-Ogden.

9 Jankovic v Development Authority of the City of Calgary, 2020 CGYSDAB 2 10 MacDonald, Douglass, Alberta’s Direct Control District: A Critical Analysis, (The University of Manitoba, 1984) 11 City of Calgary, Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, as amended

3 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

Proposed DC within a MX-2 Context

The project as proposed is Direct Control, closely aligned to MX-2 with Relaxations in mass, parking, and uses. It is imperative that before we discuss the impact of a DC/MX-2 on the surrounding community we must first determine the context of the community surrounding it.

R-C2 – Residential Contextual One/Two Dwelling District.12

R-C2 is a low-density residential district within the meaning of the Land Use Bylaw. Its use is intended for “The Residential – Contextual One / Two Dwelling District is intended to accommodate existing residential development and contextually sensitive redevelopment in the form of Duplex Dwellings, Semi-detached Dwellings, and Single Detached Dwellings in the Developed Area.

R-C2 is contextually envisioned for Residential buildings, certain home-based businesses, emergency services, parks, secondary suites and signs. Discretionary uses within the district in clue, but are not limited to Assisted Living, Duplex Dwelling, Bed and Breakfast, Small place of worship. With a maximum building height of 10 meters.

It is clear that a designation of DC – R-C2 could be considered with a relaxation for the purposes of commercial childcare.

M-X2 – Multi-Residential – Contextual Medium Profile Support Commercial District13

M-X2 is a multi-residential designation in the developed area that is primarily for 4-5 story apartment buildings with commercial storefronts. One key element of M-X2 is that is that it will “typically have higher numbers of Dwelling Units and traffic generation than low density residential dwellings and low-profile residential dwellings and low-profile residential districts and is typically located at community nodes or transit and transportation nodes.

M-X2 has permitted and discretionary uses similar to R-C2 with the addition of childcare services (commercial vice home based) and live work units and has a maximum height of 16 meters from grade at 5 meters from a shared property line with a low-profile residential district.

The Project

The project as planned calls for a maximum building height of 17 meters inclusive of commercial at and below grade and 4 stories of residential supportive housing, complete with “wrap-around” supports for residents and ostensibly the community at large. The proposed project contains provisions for various forms of social support including but not limited to early intervention care. It should be noted that should the resident with a shared property line wish to redevelop his house the maximum height he could build to is 8.2m or less than half the height of the proposed project.

12 Supra at note 11. 13 Supra at note 7.

4 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

Environmental

There are concerns that the ground water beneath the church is contaminated by Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Chloroform resultant from operations in CP Rail’s Ogden Shops.14 There are a number of monitoring wells in the Millican-Ogden Area, the two closest wells to the project disclose TCE levels of 17 ug/l (BH0625) and 26 ug/l (BH0911), both of these wells are located within +/-100m of the proposed development site.15 There are further concerns in that at least one of those wells shows a chloroform level higher than that which is safe for humans.

While there is an indication that an Environmental Site Assessment Phase II has been conducted and reported to the City of Calgary, the information has not been reported to Alberta Environment and Parks and is not publicly available, it should be further noted that it was approved by the City of Calgary on April 23, 2020 and not made available to the community at large, or at all by the applicant.

Specific Planning Considerations – The Municipal Development Plan:16

We are again reminded that the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) is the only currently approved planning document, the MDP is a Statutory Plan with meaning as described by the Municipal Government Act (MGA)17. This analysis will give specific attention to Volume 1, Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.7, 3.4, 3.5, and Volume 2, Part 3 (Bylaw 19P2017, as amended by Bylaw 82P2018).

Section 2.3.2 Respecting and enhancing neighborhood character:

We are reminded of the objectives of the MDP in this context, specifically, “Significant change can impact adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods. Attention must be paid ensuring that appropriate local context is considered.” Bylaw 19P2017). The MDP also makes the following policy statements respecting Section 2.3.2,

“a. Respect the existing character of low-density residential areas, while still allowing for innovative and creative designs that foster distinctiveness. b. Ensure an appropriate [emphasis added] transition of development intensity, uses, and built form between low-density residential areas and more intensive multi-residential or commercial areas. d. Ensure that the preparation of Local Area Plans includes community engagement early in the decision-making process that identifies and addresses local character, community needs, and appropriate development transitions with existing neighborhoods”

Note c, and d do not relate to the application at hand as c. deals with infill development and d. deals with the preparation of Local Area Plans (while a local area plan exists in draft form for Millican-Ogden it is not an approved statutory document). However, it must be noted that this bylaw amendment includes an amendment to the Millican-Ogden Area Revitalization Plan, the Administration has not in fact or at all engaged the Community Association or the Community at large with respect to an amendment to this local area plan.

14 An Assessment of Helath Risks from Exposure to Trichloroethylene (TCE) in the Ogden Community, (CP Rail) 2004. 15 Canadian Pacific Ogden Shops Contaminated Ground Water Plume Report, (Arcadis Canada Inc.) March 2020. 16 Municipal Development Plan. Bylaw 24P2009, as amended by Bylaw 82P2018, (City of Calgary) 2009 17 Supra note 4

5 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

That portion of Millican-Ogden can best be described by built form as neighborhood- limited, restricted to low-density residential development. The development is not located on a Neighborhood Main Street nor a transit corridor and is currently 153m at best from the closest transit route. It is recognised that in the future there may be an LRT station within 336m of the development, but it is not yet clear the exact placement of Ogden Station.

It is our view that the developer has intentionally failed to consider the Municipal Development Plan, the MGA, or the Millican-Ogden Area Revitalization Plan in its current form, in favour of the draft Guidebook for Great Communities and Draft Millican-Ogden ARP as those documents, tend to support the type of development that is proposed, rather than the statutory documents which tend to indicate that it is not.

Section 2.3.7 Foster Community dialogue and participation in community planning:

The policy with regards to community participation is articulated in the MDP state that the City must

“Provide for effective [emphasis added] community consultation and participation in projects of significance to the City and local communities. “

We accept that the (not so) unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 have precluded in person face to face consultation, however we submit that many technologies exist for that consultation to continue. We are aware that the Mustard Seed Street Ministry undertook a survey regarding the development in lieu of a public meeting, which is laudable, the development partners have neglected, or otherwise refused to publish, publicly the results of that survey. Further we are advised that a parking study has been undertaken, the results of which, while provided to the planning commission have not been provided publicly. The developer’s comments at a meeting on July 1, 2020, where such that the community could access the information by way of a FOIP request. This is considered by the community as an attempt to avoid transparency knowing that less than five (5) business days existed between that meeting and the end date for public comments. It is clear to the community at large and the immediate vicinity residents that a gross-lack of disclosure, and an intentional lack of transparency will result in an intentional suppression of their concerns, such that 117 members of the community within a one-block radius of the proposed development have circulated a petition in opposition of the project18. It is clear that meaningful engagement has not occurred in relation to the proposed project. The petition highlights that even if the draft ARP was a statutory document (which it isn’t) the contemplated development is out of scope.

Section 3.4 Main Streets:

Section 3.4 further defines main streets and should be read in concert with Map 1. Map 1 clearly shows that there are no Urban Main Streets within Millican-Ogden, there are two (2) Neighborhood Main Streets. These neighborhood main streets are identified as follows:

Those portions of 18 Street SE proceeding North from Glenmore Trail to 76 Avenue SE; and the Entirety of Ogden Road from Glenmore Trail North to the Bonneybrook Bridge.

18 “Petitions of Affected Persons” Various

6 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

The overarching policy objectives of the MDP are to intensify density along Main Streets as defined in the MDP, neither 23 Street SE nor 74 Avenue SE are considered to be main streets. In fact, 74 Avenue for the majority of its length within the community has been a playground zone for over 40 years.

Section 3.5 Developed Residential Areas

Section 3.5 should be given a broad reading and consider the context in which it is written. We have highlighted certain key points of the Land Use Policies contained therein:

“a. recognize the predominantly low-density, residential nature of the Developed Residential Areas and support retention of housing stock, or moderate intensification [emphasis added] in a form and nature that respects the scale and character of the neighborhood.” And “d. for multi-family housing, encourage parking that is well integrated into the residential environment.”

Given that we have not had the benefit of an opportunity to review the purported parking study we are unable to give comment, or otherwise put, as a result of a lack of disclosure the developer has withheld the opportunity to provide comment on the parking study. As such we are restricted to comment only on the parking requirements provided in the LUB19. Our estimations show a parking requirement of the proposed development of 56 spaces, where only 23 exist (taking into account 6 onsite parking spaces). While we are cognizant that the East Village has recently had a relaxation to this requirement, we must also implore you to consider that the East Village and a residential street adjacent a park is not the same, and in fact are not the same built form. Further, the development proposes that a relaxation may be in order due to the location of a proposed LRT Station (the “Ogden Station”) it is submitted that while the station is planned approved its final resting place has not in fact been solidified and cannot be used to plan a reduction in parking that is transit mobility related. It is submitted that while the Bylaw permits transit oriented reductions within 400m of an LRT station the best guess distance is 336.27m and until the stations drawings and survey are complete it is premature to make a reduction of such accuracy.

Volume 2 Part 3 – The Developed Areas Guidebook: (as amended by Bylaw 82P2018)20

Specifically, Section 3.1.2(c)(2) “Multi-Residential development should be designed or planned to: b. Located within Activity Centres and Main Streets, while ensuring it is strategically planned throughout the community. It must be made clear that Activity Centres do not yet exist within Millican-Ogden, and even the one that is planned is entirely centred around the former Royal Canadian Legion site on Ogden Road, we have established that the proposed development does not exist on either a current, nor planned main street or within any activity centre of any definition.

19 Supra at note 7 20 Supra at note 11 Vol 2 Part 3 Developed Areas Guidebook

7 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

Specific Planning Considerations – Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations

The particular parcel has registered on title the Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations.21 This federal statutory zoning document requires its consideration in all planning matters in the approaches to the Calgary International Airport. While it is the position of the Community Association that the requirements of the Regulation are likely not engaged in this development, its absence in the report to the Planning Commission and Council speak volumes, and call into question both the applicant, and administration’s obligation to conduct due diligence.

Community Engagement

There has been no mass public consultation with relation to this project. While the landowners agent approached the Community Association on a number of occasions no formal engagement of the Community Association occurred until July 1, 2020, at which time the Applicant was argumentative and dismissive of the community’s concerns in favour of the “economics” of the project which tend to indicate the design is driven by cost per square foot and not sound planning.

The applicant had a planned open house on April 7, 2020, which was scrapped due to the onset of COVID-19 in favour of an online survey conducted by the Mustard Seed. It should be noted that the area known as Ogden Flats has an aging population with some having no access to the internet, or even computers. In any event the results of the survey were not publicly available and selected portions were buried in a side note on the Mustard Seed’s webpage.

Notwithstanding the evolution of technology, no open house, telephone town hall, or other type or form of public engagement was attempted by the applicant. It has been suggested by the applicant that the Community Association was obstructive in the process, this is a position we deny, and offer that it is not the role of the City of Calgary, nor Community Association to conduct engagement on the applicant’s behalf, to do so would shift the burden of engagement from the applicant to community associations city wide, this is a dangerous and frankly reckless precedent to set. Frankly put, it is not the role of the City or Community Associations to satisfy the positive obligation of an applicant to engage the community.

It is our understanding that community engagement was limited to a post card mailout and limited door knocking which, as we understand, was restricted to approximately 80 residences in the immediate vicinity of the church. We acknowledge that we did not accept an online meeting with the development team as they seemed intent on avoiding engaging the community directly and that they sought to achieve successful engagement through the community association, which is frankly inappropriate on its face.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

The Millican-Ogden Community Association, guided by the sentiment of the locally affected residents within “arms reach” of the proposed development, are of the opinion that not only will market values of surrounding homes be negatively affected by the development , but that given the above planning considerations and statutory guidance provided above, the project is out of scope, and frankly out of touch with the surrounding community. The Developer and or the development partners, have chosen to rely on documents that have not yet been approved and, as a result, cannot be relied upon for decision making.22

21 Calgary International Airport Zoning Regulations, CRC c.77 22 Supra at note 6.

8 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 2

It should be made clear that the residents of Millican-Ogden recognize the need for supportive housing, of which our community contains between 6 and 20% which is well above the national average, the planned location for this supportive concept is simply out of context for the community. We could suggest at least two alternate locations, the old Ogden Legion Site, although we are convinced the current landowner has no appetite to accommodate, the vacant land adjacent to the Number 9 Firehall, or a set of vacant lots along Ogden Road directly adjacent to Victory Manor currently owned by Urban Star Capital further, there are 11 undeveloped lots on Ogden Road North of the current Esso Station, these lots were established by way of title in 1923 and the City of Calgary is the owner of this undeveloped land.23

The people of Millican-Ogden are not opposed to a redevelopment of the Church itself; but respectfully submit that it must be done in a contextually sensitive manner to the existing community. We must stress that we represent the entire community of Millican-Ogden, including the Ogden United Church whom we have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy a deep and meaningful relationship with.

It is clear that the residents feel unheard in the entire process24 it is clear that the applicant used the guise of the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid engagement in a community so opposed to this particular development. In other words, public engagement has not occurred in a meaningful way, and where it has occurred it has occurred in bad faith.

It should be noted that the Millican-Ogden Community Association doesn’t ordinarily oppose or endorse, for that matter, any development within our boundaries, usually opting not to take a position, it is important in this case that we represent our constituents in the same manner as any member of council would, it is recommended that the development be scaled-back to a less imposing structure with a maximum height of 3 stories, stepped-back in a contextually sensitive manner to the immediate neighbors. This would serve two (2) purposes, maintain, generally, the look and feel of the developed low-density residential area with a low-rise multi-family, mixed-use facility, while maintaining suitable traffic and parking patterns and without overloading the existing infrastructure.

A Parting Thought on Intensification in Millican-Ogden

It is the position of the Community Association that intensification of the Community must occur from our neighborhood main streets in, and not from the centre out, a vibrant Ogden Road for example would frankly drive further development throughout the community. As it relates to this project there are 11 undeveloped lots owned by the City of Calgary, who could, by way of a land swap achieve the desired effect and frankly spur the revitalization of Ogden Road and drive development in the Community.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

John C.W. McDonald, CD First Vice President Millican-Ogden Community Association For and with the consent of the Board of Directors

23 Land Title Certificate 25R159, (Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta), 1923 24 Supra at note 4

9 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 3 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Cara

* Last name Sauriol

Email [email protected]

Phone

Land Use Bylaw Amendment – LOC2020-0013 Development Permit – DP2020-3072 * Subject 7401 23 ST SE

* Comments - please refrain from providing personal information in My comments would not fit in this space - have attached a letter for your review. this field (maximum 2500 characters)

ISC: 1/1

Unrestricted Sep 8, 2020

11:36:51 AM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 3a

I am a homeowner that lives steps away from the Ogden United Church. The first time that I heard about this proposed development was several months ago by way of a sign on the front lawn of the Church site. The only contact information was for the City - not the parties making the proposal. The second contact that we had was a letter about the development - this was handed to my husband outside our home by one of our neighbors. This did have contact information for the Mustard Seed, the United Church and the architect- but far too late in the process for any of the adjacent residents to have any sort of involvement.

The most frustrating part for us is that we were never involved or invited to be involved with this project. Our questions and concerns are unanswered by the United Church and the Mustard Seed. At this point, we feel that we have had no say in the future of our neighborhood and absolutely no viable engagement by these parties. There's a huge aspect of unfairness with that and along with myself, all of the adjacent neighbors are very frustrated and angry with the situation. We all have concerns about the proposed project and want some transparency from the groups involved. The feeling in the neighborhood is that a minimum amount of engagement was done (sign on the lawn of the Church and a letter) in order to "tick" a box and move forward. This is a major change to the dynamics of the street and has a dramatic effect on the lives of the closest home owners. The size and scale of the building itself is far too large for the site, considering the surrounding residences are all no more than two stories. It's a building that by size and scale, with the commercial aspect, should be on a main road, such as Ogden Road. If this project were being proposed for a site on Ogden Road, I don't think there would be any opposition to it at all. As it is now, it's like dropping the Bow Tower in the middle of Heritage Park and expecting it to blend in - this just doesn't work.

It is really hard to understand how this multiuse/multipurpose building is a "fit" for the current location of the United Church. The height alone is raising issues with the adjacent neighbors for matters such as privacy and having as one neighbor put it, a "five story fence". I am on the next block and this is even an issue for our home, as the upper floors will have a clear view of my front yard and rooms on the top floor of my home. A two or three story building would be much more appropriate on the site.

Even the parking has not been thoroughly assessed - the 2 day "study" in February this year did not account for the users of George Moss Park in the spring, summer and fall or the potential users of the site. It didn't even target the busiest days of use at the United Church, Currently, if vehicles are parked on both sides of 74 Avenue (homeowners and users of George Moss Park) only ONE vehicle can pass along the street. If there is a Community Kitchen, Cafe, staff for the building, users of the DayCare, users of the proposed services and comings and goings of friends & family of the residents - how much parking will actually be available for nearby residents and anyone making use of George Moss Park? We know that there are only 6 spots available at the building - the rest will be street parking and this is definitely of concern to adjacent homeowners, including myself. CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 3a

Along with the parking concerns, comes traffic issues and this development is right across from a playground, where many local children play now. There are concerns about the volume of traffic this development will bring and potential dangers posed to the users of George Moss Park, including the playground. Even now, there are issues with speeding and lack of concern with pedestrians and cyclists around George Moss Park.

To sum up, it feels very much like a situation where the adjacent homeowners will be completely ignored and that this project will go ahead without any input by the people who will be impacted the most. I see absolutely no fairness in the lack of engagement and lack of opportunity to be heard; I want to see the groups involved ensure that residents have a say. The United Church and the Mustard Seed are not making connections with the community with how this project sits at the moment. It's imperative that they spend some more time looking at how much impact this will have on the area residents and decide if they really do want to be good neighbors or not. So far, they have completely missed the mark.

I am a very concerned and unhappy resident of Ogden.

Cara Sauriol

CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 4 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Stephen

* Last name Parke

Email [email protected]

Phone

Land Use Bylaw Amendment – LOC2020-0013 Development Permit – DP2020-3072 * Subject Project Address: 7401 23 ST

RE:Land Use Bylaw Amendment – LOC2020-0013 Development Permit – DP2020-3072 Project Address: 7401 23 ST

I am against the approval of the above mentioned project for the following reasons: * Comments - please refrain from providing personal information in Lack of Community Engagement this field (maximum 2500 Build height and scale characters) Lack of contextual fit within the neighborhood Building Site Coverage Lack of Parking provided Lack of contextual fit concerning the commercial frontage facing 74 Avenue (i.e.- this design is meant for a main street application like Ogden Road)

ISC: 1/1

Unrestricted Sep 7, 2020

8:46:17 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 5

Angela Cruickshank 7408 22A Street SE Calgary, AB T2C 0X3

September 8, 2020

City Council (via the City Clerk) The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100 Station M Calgary, AB T2P 2M5

Re: Calgary Land Use Bylaw Amendment LOC2020-0013 Development Permit - DP2020-3072 - Ogden United Church and Mustard Seed Ministry Development at 7401, 23 Street SE

His Worship Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Calgary City Counsel Members, I write this letter today to ask for your support with rejecting the Ogden United Church and Mustard Seed Ministry Development at 7401, 23 Street SE and instead requiring the named applicants to engage in real dialogue with residents such as myself and neighbours who are directly impacted by the proposed development.

As noted many times with the co-applicants there are numerous engagement and planning issues that the community has been raising and not being heard or listened to about. The co-applicants instead completely ignore or blame other factors (Millican Ogden Community Association and COVID19), for their inability to have a true two-way dialogue- even at times blatantly lying about events which is not respectful to the community residents, or constructive with this key process. Many of my neighbours do not use the internet or have access to the engagement initiatives the co-applicants are referencing so is this real engagement- one would argue not at all. The ingenuity and disrespect to not only the overall community, but those residents (like myself) that are directly impacted is extremely disengaging with municipal politics. I have myself been ridiculed by the co-applicant’s architect (Hans Koppe) for questions asked instead of professionally and constructively engaged. I understand a key piece of the process for these types of changes is engagement and again, I can assure you this has not happened and instead feels like it is being done with an attempt to not involve the community or nearby residents.

In terms of the planning concerns, many of the immediately impacted residents have been trying to understand and get dialogue on a number of key pieces: 1. Why does the building have to be so large- many of us own 1-2 story bungalows and this will tower over our residences being at over 5 stories in size (almost 6 when you consider the first floor is stepped up)? 2. There is a lot of discussion about the benefits this will bring to the community, but many residents do not understand what the additional benefits actually are. We have many of the services already in this location and through the community so in fact there is no additional benefit as the co-applicants are trying to have you believe. 3. Having a commercial feel in this location does not seem to make sense- we have many other locations in the neighbourhood that are more suiting for an active street such as they are attempting to add or build. Why here? Ogden Road is in desperate need of becoming a more active streetscape so why are we ignoring that area and moving into the heart of the community right away. 4. How do we ensure the intended use of the property remains for years to come? And firstly, it would be great to really understand the exact intended uses as this has not been clear or transparent by the co-applicants. 5. I understand a parking study was completed but it was done so at a very interesting time in the year- not when the park is being fully utilized with baseball, tennis and playground traffic. I assure you the area around this application can be very busy. I am extremely concerned about the lack of adequate consideration for this key piece.

Ultimately, I plead with Calgary City Counsel to help show the community that they truly do have a voice and are deserving of proper engagement and reject this application so that we can have a proper discussion. Again, as a directly impacted resident, there has been little to no conversation on what they are intending to do and with proper discussion I am sure we can find a compromise that works for the community and the co-applicants. I’m happy to have further conversation with any of you on this matter should you wish to get clarification on anything mentioned above.

Sincerely, Angela Cruickshank (403) 477-2823 CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 6 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Fritz

* Last name Wagner

Email [email protected]

Phone

LandUse Bylaw Amendment - LOC2020-0013 Development Permit - DP2020-3072 * Subject Project Address : 7401- 23

Dear City Clerk / City Counsel, I want to voice my concerns about ; Lack of Community Engagement Build Height and Scale * Comments - please refrain from Lack of Contextual Fit within the Neighborhood providing personal information in Building Site Coverage this field (maximum 2500 Lack of Parking provided characters) Lack of Contextual Fit concerning the Commercial Frontage facing 74th Avenue ( i.e.- this design is meant for a main street application like Ogden Road)

ISC: 1/1

Unrestricted Sep 8, 2020

8:15:46 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 7 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Gary and Carole

* Last name Gerlach

Email [email protected]

Phone 4036800509

* Subject Ogden Bylaw114D2020

Please accept this submission as our input into the Land Use Redesignation . Please take into consideration that this planned location for this is totally out of concept for our existing community / neighborhood .Being we are predominately bungalow style * Comments - please refrain from homes on residential streets, we feel this is not a good fit for this type of building. providing personal information in Another concern I would like to share is the parking issues if this approved ! This plan this field (maximum 2500 is showing a building of 5 stories and 24 live in suites and only 6 parking spaces . characters) Please be advised my husband and I are STRONGLY OPPOSED to the scale of this development , also issues of parking that would be created now and in the future . George Moss Park is located on the north side of 74 Ave and is a playground zone where children are playing .

ISC: 1/1

Unrestricted Sep 8, 2020

9:11:20 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 8 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

✔ * I have read and understand that my name, contact information and comments will be made publicly available in the Council Agenda.

* First name Carlos

* Last name Santos

Email [email protected]

Phone 587-225-5728

* Subject Zoning Redesignation at 7401 23street SE Plan 955AV, Block 2 Lots 1 to 4

RE: Zoning Redesignation at 7401 23street SE Plan 955AV, Block 2 Lots 1 to 4. This development raises several concerns for the local residents and comes right on the heels of another development that required rezoning directly across the street.

Owners have a right to the quite enjoyment of their property. Bringing in a facility with a lot of traffic will seriously affect this right. Planned programs, classes, and a high- density residence will drastically increase movement, traffic and noise in the area. A large building will seriously affect the view, environment and appreciation of the community for current residents. Increase in traffic from a multi residential facility, whether foot or automobile, will seriously affect property value in neighboring homes. Increased traffic also brings increased risk of vandalism. For those renting neighboring properties there will be an increased challenge in the ability to find quiet, family oriented, renters. This area advertises homes as quite, near a park, and perfect for families. A large low income, multi unit residence, will at the very least cause a perception issue that will increase difficulty in renting and decrease * Comments - please refrain from desirability for the very families that can build and contribute to this community. This providing personal information in will result in a reduction in the ability to rent to long term, and result in an increase of this field (maximum 2500 rental to people less interested in the quiet qualities of the neighborhood. The conse- characters) quence is a tendency away from quite stability to a noisier more transitional neighborhood. What are the traffic consequences of such a large mutli family unit in the area? A traffic increase including staff increase in staff and others is expected. The area in front of

ISC: 1/2

Unrestricted Sep 8, 2020

6:28:41 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 8 Public Submission

City Clerk's Office

this property is already very limited in parking space. In the development across the street we understood there was an agreement with the Church to accommodate parking increases. What happens now? Once re-zoning is done, future DC zoned businesses could be set up in this lot. There is a broad applicability of such zoning and some uses potentially negatively affect the community and result in lower property values. There is no assurance that this center will maintain its current programs long term and that a subsequent business would not be even more impacting on the community. This is a massive building in a quiet community and will seriously affect the character of the community, putting at risk current residents. Further comments attached

ISC: 2/2

Unrestricted Sep 8, 2020

6:28:41 PM CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 8a

For those renting neighboring properties there will be an increased challenge in the ability to find quiet, family oriented, renters. This area advertises homes as quite, near a park, and perfect for families. A large low income, multi unit residence, will at the very least cause a perception issue that will increase difficulty in renting and decrease desirability for the very families that can build and contribute to this community. This will result in a reduction in the ability to rent to long term, and result in an increase of rental to people less interested in the quiet qualities of the neighborhood. The consequence is a tendency away from quite stability to a noisier more transitional neighborhood.

What are the traffic consequences of such a large mutli family unit in the area? A traffic increase including staff increase in staff and others is expected. The area in front of this property is already very limited in parking space. In the development across the street we understood there was an agreement with the Church to accommodate parking increases. What happens now?

Once re-zoning is done, future DC zoned businesses could be set up in this lot. There is a broad applicability of such zoning and some uses potentially negatively affect the community and result in lower property values. There is no assurance that this center will maintain its current programs long term and that a subsequent business would not be even more impacting on the community.

This is a massive building in a quiet community and will seriously affect the character of the community, putting at risk current residents.

The risk of such a center is placed entirely on the community and especially on the neighboring homes. Investors don’t live nearby, their property values are not affected, and the lifestyle and tranquillity of their communities isn’t put at risk. We do not support this land use re-designation and subsequent development and ask the city to not make any decision to the detriment of other local residents. CPC2020-0849 Attach 7 Letter 9

From: [email protected] To: Public Submissions Subject: 7401 23 ST SE - LOC2020-0013 - Comment from Development Map - Tue 9/8/2020 10:10:26 AM Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 10:10:28 AM

Application: LOC2020-0013

Submitted by: Beki Snyder

Contact Information

Address: 7818 21A St SE, Calgary AB T2C 1Z2

Phone:

Email: [email protected]

Feedback:

Good morning. I support for this land use amendment. This project brings several non-profit funded, much needed services to our area which is inline with the current provincial government direction of social supports. The placement for this development minimally impacts current resident as there are only a few houses that may be directly affected by this development. The prospected loss of convenience and estimated loss of resale value of the nearby homes is not nearly as great of a societal detriment as the impact of unsafe, unstable housing is on the population. Ogden is an older neighborhood and in need of new development. We are no longer the suburbs but almost inner city and development is part of that shift. This development is an opportunity to bring more density to our area.Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge you to support this application